How big is your footprint on the Earth?

[loseyourname]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

What the heck? Where did your post count go?

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

What the heck? Where did your post count go?

I'm a 'newbie' now (see Ankap if you wonder more).

[Sip]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

Everyone can definitely have the industrial lifestyle. If not, that means the population is too large. A few nice diseases and some natural disasters will take care of that problem I'm sure. Those that don't have cars and can't get themselves to a hospital, where the doctor also has to get to by car, and receive the medicine that is brought in by planes, trucks, and more cars, will just perish. Problem solved.

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

Everyone can definitely have the industrial lifestyle. If not, that means the population is too large. A few nice diseases and some natural disasters will take care of that problem I'm sure. Those that don't have cars and can't get themselves to a hospital, where the doctor also has to get to by car, and receive the medicine that is brought in by planes, trucks, and more cars, will just perish. Problem solved.

I know that you are being sarcastic (to wake people up), but other people don't know. I love you even more for that alone, Sip.

[Sip]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

You don't know jack. I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually strongly believe that the Earth is overpopulated. I DO NOT think the answer to our limited resources is the reduction in consumption per individual. I think (very strongly) that the answer is in the reduction of consumers.

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

You don't know jack. I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually strongly believe that the Earth is overpopulated. I DO NOT think the answer to our limited resources is the reduction in consumption per individual. I think (very strongly) that the answer is in the reduction of consumers.

But I do know "Jack" and I also know what I am talking about.

Population is an issue, certainly. Population is only one factor (and I think consumption is far more important as an issue than sheer population right now). OF course population is an issue, but there are many factors that we can debate there. I think those who focus only on population are blinded by greed--but there is always instant karma.

Recall, I am defending my own life and others at the same time.

the answer is in the reduction of consumers

YOU MEAN TO SAY A REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION!

Human lives versus material factory crap? You must mean to say something like consumption must be reduced while the human population levels (which is happening with more feminism and equality and basic-needs being met), right?

We can debate the ways... but please try to understand what I am saying.

[Sip]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

YOU MEAN TO SAY A REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION!

I think my post was entirely clear in itself. I don't know what you are trying to "clarify". If you are trying to somehow twist what I say to fit your agenda, it ain't gonna work. Once again, I do NOT believe in reducing per capita consumption.

That means none of this drive more efficient vehicles, walk to work, don't work at all, eat vegetables instead of meat, wipe your ass with your hand instead of toilet paper ... NO none of it. We do NOT agree. You debate whatever you want but don't drag me down with you.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

Everyone can definitely have the industrial lifestyle. If not, that means the population is too large. A few nice diseases and some natural disasters will take care of that problem I'm sure.

Alas it won't. Africa is riddled with aids - but the population-growth is still massive. Even at the height of the so-called famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s the size of it's population was still growing. Earthquakes are never big enough, even with an accompanying tsunami.

[jgk3]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES

FOOD 2.4

MOBILITY 0.4

SHELTER 0.6

GOODS/SERVICES 1

TOTAL FOOTPRINT 4.4



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

I'm 17 without a driver's licence, that must explain it....

I don't get it though, why does it say 1.8 hectares per person for mine, and 4.5 for yours?

[Anahita]

Re: How big is your footprint on the Earth?

I think my post was entirely clear in itself. I don't know what you are trying to "clarify". If you are trying to somehow twist what I say to fit your agenda, it ain't gonna work. Once again, I do NOT believe in reducing per capita consumption.

That means none of this drive more efficient vehicles, walk to work, don't work at all, eat vegetables instead of meat, wipe your ass with your hand instead of toilet paper ... NO none of it. We do NOT agree. You debate whatever you want but don't drag me down with you.

I was ‘clarifying your position’ for ‘your’ own good (for anyone who holds that view). Maybe we have different ideas of 'industrial lifestyle.'

I find lots of truth on this page. I don't agree with all on there, but the page summarizes some of what I've been saying:

"Increased population is not the cause of landlessness, it is the result of it. If a traditional culture, its values, and its sense of identity are destroyed, population growth rates increase dramatically. As in 17th- and 18th-century Britain, peasants in the Third World are kicked off their land by the local ruling elite, who then use the land to produce cash crops for export while their fellow country people starve. Like Ireland during the Potato Famine, the Third World nations most affected by famine have also been exporters of food to the advanced nations. Malthusianism is handy for the wealthy, giving them a "scientific" excuse for the misery they cause so they can enjoy their blood-money without remorse.

Population growth, far from being the cause of poverty, is in fact a result of it. There is an inverse relationship between per capita income and the fertility rate -- as poverty decreases, so do the population rates...

This [Western] "standard of living" is a product of an alienated society in which consumption for the sake of consumption is the new god. In a grow-or-die economy, production and consumption must keep increasing to prevent economic collapse. This need for growth leads to massive advertising campaigns to indoctrinate people with the capitalist theology that more and more must be consumed to find "happiness" (salvation), producing consumerist attitudes that feed into an already-present tendency to consume in order to compensate for doing boring, pointless work in a hierarchical workplace.

Unless a transformation of values occurs that recognises the importance of living as opposed to consuming, the ecological crisis will get worse. It's impossible to imagine such a radical transformation occurring under capitalism, whose lifeblood is consumption for the sake of consumption."
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secE6.html